Batman: Son of the Demon and Batman #655-657
Writers: Grant Morrison (Batman)
Mike W. Barr (Batman: Son of the Demon)
Artists: Andy Kubert (Batman)
Jerry Bingham (Batman: Son of the Demon)
Company: DC Comics
When I heard that Grant Morrison was going to be taking over on Batman, I was extremely excited about it since a big part of the reason I got back into superhero comics was Morrison’s New X-Men. The Batman books have been barely adequate at best for so long that I envisioned Morrison’s appointment to the title to be the beginning of something completely new and revolutionary the way that his New X-Men stint was. I promptly got myself a copy of Mike Barr’s Batman: Son of the Demon since fellow Comic Pantser, Nick Budd, said that he liked it, and it was to be a big part of the basis for Morrison’s run on Batman.
I figured that Morrison’s storyline was a can’t-miss. It followed up on a very good Batman original graphic novel, and how could Grant Morrison writing about the son of Batman and Talia al Ghul be anything but awesome? Unfortunately, Morrison appears to have decided to use the idea of Batman’s son from Batman: Son of the Demon, but is using his own explanation of how it occurred instead of the explanation established in the original graphic novel. So far, his run has failed to rise above being merely average, and Batman is still mired in a boring morass of mediocrity. For a writer that is capable of the things that Grant Morrison is capable of, average and adequate just aren’t good enough.
Batman: Son of the Demon features Batman and Ra’s al Ghul working together to defeat a greater evil. Barr does a good job of showing the respect that the two have for each other despite the fact that they so often find themselves at odds. Their dynamic is played up even further with Batman’s marriage to Talia. In fact, when Ra’s finds out about the potential grandson that Talia bears, he considers Batman his own son.
The book has plenty of action, but just as often as Batman is smacking around the bad guys, he is in philisophical debate with Ra’s or using his keen mind to unravel some mystery. Barr shows not just Batman, the detective, but also puts Batman’s humanity on full display. This story takes place in a time before Batman was a sociopath only marginally capable of functioning as a human being, and he is more humanised in this story than he has been in anything else written in recent memory. He has real human compassion for his loved ones and enemies alike, and his paternal instincts make him a far more relatable character. To a reader who has been reading about the obnoxiously arrogant and paranoid Batman of the last few years, the humanity of the character in Batman: Son of the Demon is almost shocking.
Jerry Bingham does a great job on art. The story starts out with some rockin’ action, and the action sequences are a great example of how action can be well done without being flashy. In fact, his color choices and panel placements are quite subtle and subdued. That isn’t to say that the action isn’t exciting. There may not be even one big splash page, but the art is most certainly exciting. Jerry Bingham possesses an ability to tell the story not just by the content of each panel but through inspired placement of panels in relation to one another. Bingham also excells in the arena of body language and facial expression. One could not possibly miss the agony painted on Talia’s face as she is torn between her conflicting loyalties to her father and her husband.
Batman: Son of the Demon by Mike W. Barr (creator of Batman and the Outsiders) and Jerry Bingham was originally published as over-sized original graphic novel and is currently available from Diamond with the pages shrank to regular comic size and staple-bound as a one-shot comic rather than in a graphic novel format. If you can find the original over-sized format, the extra couple bucks is well worth it.
The first issue of Morrison’s run on Batman starts off very strong. The first half of the issue is absolutely spectacular. It’s quite clear that Morrison wants to make a clean break from the Batman stories of the recent past and spin his own tale. It has all the wackiness and crazy symbolism one would expect out of a Grant Morrison Batman book, but once Morrison concludes his completely genius transition from the Batman stories of the past few years into the Batman stoy he intends to tell, the entertainment value of the title drops dramatically. There are still a few moments that piqued my interest in the first issue. For instance, when Alfred points out that Bruce is using his “scary voice” all the time, I actually audibly laughed, but for the most part, the first arc has been terribly plain and predictable. If it were not for the fact that Morrison has really surprised me in the past, I would have given up on this title after the second issue.
With few notable exceptions, the second issue was almost completely devoid of anything interesting at all. Batman is forced to fight a veritable army of ninja man-bats in a museum, and Kubert throws in some great touches with some of the pop-art in the museum helping to show the action of the fight sequence. Sounds awesome right? Despite how great the idea sounds, it fails to really feel action-packed. Unfortunately, Kubert’s art is very unexciting and lacks real depth in the detail department so far on Batman. The backgrounds are extremely muddled, and all the facial expressions are pretty generic and fail to carry any characterization off of the page and into the reader’s mind. There is a point where narrative captions are used to show Batman thinking, “If there’s one thing I hate…it’s art with no content.” One could guess that the comment juxtaposed with all the pop-art “blams” and “biffs” might have been a commentary on other stories or possibly an entire style of storytelling. Ironically, art with no content is exactly what this issue feels like. The only real point of interest is the introduction between Batman and his son, Damian, and the third issue cancels out any appeal that moment had.
I am fully aware that the character of Batman’s son is intended to be an annoying brat, but making a character so thoroughly annoying that the reader is actually annoyed is not a good idea. Not only do I find myself annoyed with the character, but I find Batman’s reactions to him to be bizarre and out of character. Batman inexplicably leaves the juvenile trained by the League of Assassins alone in the hands of Alfred, a single elderly man. Sure, the kid is his son, but he is also a trained killer and the daughter of Talia al Ghul. Not surprisingly, the decision turns out to be disastrous. Damian runs off and beheads The Spook, a minor crook, and returns to the Batcave to show off his trophy. He proceeds to beat the holy crap out of Robin without any real difficulty. To top it all off, the issue concludes with one of the most accidentally laughable moments I’ve seen in quite awhile. Damian shows up in Robin’s costume and states in a not-quite-ominous tone that he is the new Robin. The moment was obviously supposed to have some shock value, but mostly it just had a mischievous tone similar to a Dennis the Menace punchline. It was very “boys will be boys. {insert laughtrack}”
So far, the book hasn’t been awful, but for a book that is obviously trying so hard to be separate and different from recent Batman stories, it is sadly average and doesn’t stand out from those stories in any real way. I don’t have a lot of confidence that it will improve based on the the issues so far, but maybe the first arc will be more impressive when tied into the rest of the run. Morrison’s first arc on New X-Men bored me quite a bit, but the entire run, taken as a single body of work, is one of my favorite superhero stories, and that gives me some hope for this title.
Loading ...
I still don’t know how it happened but I kinda missed that Morrison was going to do Batman. So when I heard about it the first issue of it was complete sold out at my store. But after the lukewarm reviews I’ve read about it I’ll doubt it if I am going to backhunt for these issues. They just seem not be as good as everybody had hoped for.
14 Oct 2006 at 11:02 am
QuoteI haven’t disliked Morrison’s run on Batman as much as some others, its certainly not his strongest work, but I do like a lot of the ideas he’s brought forth in it, if not all of the execution. The “lighter” take on Batman for one, is one I find very refreshing.
So far I think I’ve enjoyed issue two the best, the whole Neal Adam’s-esque pop art thing, the Miller-esque internal dialogue, which, while pretty out there, was a lot of fun. Also the concept of an army of Man-Bats just really appealed to me for some reason, so much so that I immediately stole it for a session of my set in the Marvel Universe, Blood of Heroes campaign, replacing the Man-Bats with Lizards natch. (Poor PC’s had to use up all their long accumulated hero points to win that one.)
Have to disagree about the art though, and I’m not usually a big Andy Kubert fan, but so far,I’ve been pleasantly surprised with his work on this book. But jot it down to the whole art being subjective thing.
I do agree with the whole Batson being too annoying for words and I also find myself baffled by Batman actions in that issue. That said, I’ll still put this book in the plus column, if only marginally so, goes to show that Morrison, even when he’s not at his best, is still better than a lot of the stuff out there, at least so far as this readers concerned.
14 Oct 2006 at 11:50 am
QuoteIt’s funny, I read the first two issues of Morrison’s run and I hadn’t even noticed that he’d changed the origin for Batman’s son. That’s a small indicator of how disjointed and, to be honest, un-engaging, I’ve found Morrison and Kubert’s Batman to be.
You loved the opening sequences, David, but those really put me off. Kubert’s storytelling seemed weak, and I honestly had *no* idea what was supposed to be happening with the two Batmen, the Joker being shot, etc. It seemed like some sort of crazy dream sequence, and when I realized that nobody was waking up, I got worried. That worry never abated.
The best moment of the book for me has been a visual one, the use of the giant pop-art which is an homage to some of the earlier Batman creators (I’m blanking on who it was right now, so I’ll leave it as a general reference rather than a specific one to avoid embarrassing myself) and a clever visual gag at any rate. But that’s not enough to overcome fairly weak character writing and a generally hard-to-follow and, let’s face it, middle of the road type story.
Like you, I was hoping that Morrison was gonna come in and kick over the tables, like he did with New X-Men. Batman is him playing by the rules as far as the story and content goes, and experimenting with the storytelling format, and I’d rather he experiment more with the former and less with the latter, especially with an artist like Kubert, who is solid but not really strong enough in my opinion to handle the wilder stuff. Maybe Kubert should have been paired with Dini on Detective, and JH Williams III paired with Morrison, as that storytelling style seems a better fit.
I still probably wouldn’t have enjoyed it, but it might have clicked better creatively.
14 Oct 2006 at 12:54 pm
QuoteI’m mostly with Randy on this. The 1st and 3rd issues are almost as wrong-headed as ASB&R, and if it weren’t for the brilliant Ninja Man-Bat 2nd issue, I’d have already dropped the title.
But I’m not a fan of NXM-style “kick the table over”ism on core titles. It’s one thing to do that on titles like Animal Man, Doom Patrol, Kid Eternity, Marvel Boy, etc., concepts that were either broken or breaking. But the problem with X-Men and Batman, pre-Morrison, wasn’t conceptual, it was simply crappy storytelling. The major characters have a particular formula to their stories that has made them popular, irregardless of quality, and a creative team changes that formula at their peril. As good as New X-Men was, it took about three minutes after Morrison left for Marvel to choose Old X-Men.
Besides, it’s not as if Morrison can’t tell amazing traditional stories. JLA (at least, early JLA) was perhaps, next to Busiek’s Avengers, the most old-school title of the ’90s, essentially Superfriends without camp. It was Morrison doing the JLA, not the JLA doing Morrison. Which I guess is my problem with his Batman run: it’s more “Batman in a Morrison story” than “Morrison writing a Batman story.”
14 Oct 2006 at 2:47 pm
QuoteI’m enjoying Batman more than I have in years. Unlike some, I wasn’t a fan of the brooding ninja Batman became in the post-Dark Knight era and remained right up until Infinite Crisis. Batman can be dark without being completely psychotic.
In an interview somewhere, Morrison indicated that he wants to capture the spirit of the Frank Robbins/Denny O’Neil Batman of the early to mid-1970’s, and I feel that’s what he’s done thus far. Heck, it’s great to see Bruce Wayne again! I’d almost forgotten that Batman had a public face.
My only (slight) quibble (that has nothing to do with Morrison) is the lack of connection between the “Face the Face” storyline and everything that’s followed after. It seems that “One Year Later” took place in a bubble, and now everything’s going on its merry way.
14 Oct 2006 at 3:47 pm
QuoteMr. Lander, you used te word ‘disjointed’ to describe the book, and I couldn’t think of a better word. However, it does have that wonderful Morrison feel to it, and it’s decidedly off-kilter. The visual gags in the second issue were just great, and Alfred’s every line is spot-on. The pacing is still a bit off, but we are only 3 issues in. I’ll definitely stick with it.
14 Oct 2006 at 3:55 pm
QuoteIn an interview somewhere, Morrison indicated that he wants to capture the spirit of the Frank Robbins/Denny O’Neil Batman of the early to mid-1970’s, and I feel that’s what he’s done thus far. Heck, it’s great to see Bruce Wayne again! I’d almost forgotten that Batman had a public face.
See, this is what I was hoping for… Morrison talks a great game, and he was talking about going back to a more human Batman, who actually knew how to be a person. But I haven’t seen that in the actual issues. Sure, we’ve seen Bruce Wayne, but has he really given much of a sense of the character, or is it a few of tossed-off funny lines to Alfred? Basically, I like the *idea* of a more human Batman, but I’m not convinced Morrison has carried it off.
Also, I’m no great fan of the uber-Bat asshole characterization, but it’s worth noting that while Frank Miller started that ball rolling, Grant Morrison himself gave it a great big kickstart with his use of Batman in JLA. Which I really enjoyed at the time, but I now view as maybe a mistake, as it pushed the character into that characterization corner where he remained for the last 5-6 years at least.
14 Oct 2006 at 4:38 pm
QuoteBut I’m not a fan of NXM-style “kick the table over”ism on core titles. It’s one thing to do that on titles like Animal Man, Doom Patrol, Kid Eternity, Marvel Boy, etc., concepts that were either broken or breaking. But the problem with X-Men and Batman, pre-Morrison, wasn’t conceptual, it was simply crappy storytelling. The major characters have a particular formula to their stories that has made them popular, irregardless of quality, and a creative team changes that formula at their peril. As good as New X-Men was, it took about three minutes after Morrison left for Marvel to choose Old X-Men.
See, I’m generally of the opinion that you shouldn’t stretch these characters so much that they break, but there’s nothing wrong with actually changing them, and Morrison is one of the few people I trust to make those changes. X-Men had become rather stale, as had Batman (and to some degree, Superman and Spider-Man as well), and Morrison basically took the central theme of the series, gave it an update, patched up a couple characters and gave a great foundation to go forward with.
Marvel then, as you said, ran screaming back in the other direction as fast as they could. A shame, because a good writer could have done solid stories going forward from Morrison’s changes, and a great writer could have done phenomenal work that continued to push the characters forward. Instead, we’re getting pretty much retread stories again. I mean, I’m enjoying the X-Men in space classic style Brubaker is dishing out, but I’d love it even more if it was taking place in the context of the new spins Morrison put on the Shi’ar Empire and the X-Men. And the loss of the X-Corporation, a great idea, is a shame as well.
I mean, don’t get me wrong, I’m appalled at what Bendis has done to the Avengers, what Millar is doing to the Marvel Universe in Civil War, what Meltzer did in Identity Crisis, etc. I’m *generally* not a fan of making huge, sweeping changes to the characters for the sake of big, shocking events. But when you do it in a way that is fairly consistent with what has gone before, you can put a new spin on tired properties while remaining respectful to the characters’ spirit.
Or maybe I just have a double standard, and I hate what Bendis/Millar/etc. write and like Morrison’s take. I’m OK with that.
14 Oct 2006 at 4:51 pm
QuoteI honestly just can’t get past the Kubert art. Maybe that’s just me being a Morrison partisan and trying to find someone else to blame for a pretty disappointing series, but right from the opening pages, the art has really put me off. Maybe Morrison had a great concept or maybe he’s just phoning this one in. I’m not sure it would make much of a difference either way.
14 Oct 2006 at 5:34 pm
QuoteAlec, as a big Morrison fanboy myself, I’d love to blame Kubert as well. But while he’s got his weaknesses, Kubert is not an incompetent artist. He’s done some good work in his career, and even though I’m not particularly fond of his work on Batman, I can’t say it’s awful or the worst choice they could have made.
I’m afraid that some of the fault has to be laid at Morrison’s feet on this one. The characterization of Batman’s son has been mishandled, as has the clumsy introduction of him into the story, and that opening sequence was like Morrison trying to be too bizarre without grounding the reader in his story first. I don’t think he’s phoning it in, I just think what he’s trying isn’t working.
14 Oct 2006 at 7:26 pm
QuoteI seem to be the opposite of most people here. I really liked the first and third issues and didn’t care for the second. Kubert’s art isn’t as great as it’s been in the past, but I still think he’s doing a pretty good job.
I didn’t read “Son of the Demon,” so how is the kid’s origin changed?
15 Oct 2006 at 5:48 pm
QuoteI’m not giving up on Morrison’s Batman just yet, but like David said in his review, it is a bit predictable. And even though I didn’t exactly know what the heck was happening at the start of the first issue, I liked the bizarreness of it. I’m really hoping that at the beginning of the next arc, a Joker centralized one I hear, we’ll get something a little more off the rails, maybe something that is close to the strangeness of the world presented in his New X-Men. I don’t know if that will happen, but I want it to, because I really do want to like this book.
Also putting another, more interesting artist on the book couldn’t hurt. Maybe, David Lopez or Ryan Sook. Someone that isn’t so…Meh.
If anyone does get a chance though, take the time to check out the Son of the Demon reprint (though I want it at least in prestige format DC!). It’s a great read with tride and true art that kicks some ass. Worth your time and most certainly worth the $5.99 price tag.
16 Oct 2006 at 2:10 pm
Quote1. I like it I wont like it if the kid REALLY is Batman’s son and it’s dealt with in one issuse.
2. there are a few things that lead me to belive somthing funny is going on
3. Bruce mentions alternate realaties for no good reason
4. Telia does’nt seem to sure when her child was born
5. That kid is one BIG freaking 10 year old
16 Oct 2006 at 3:09 pm
QuoteUm, there seems to be some confusion out there in fandom…
Barr’s excellent “Son of the Demon” GN is still out of continuity. Morrison has proposed, in his storyline, that the child was conceived during Wayne’s time in the Sahara (Batman #244). Hence the Tropic of Cancer line and the bit about being drugged. Plus, just take a look at Kubert’s depiction of the scenery. None of it fits with Barr’s tale.
For more details, I’d direct you to this thread at Alvaro’s Comicboards:
http://www.comicboards.com/batman/view.php?trd=061007233448
18 Oct 2006 at 12:12 pm
QuoteI don’t know about confusion, Bagheera. As Nick says, Morrison’s take doesn’t line up with Son of the Demon, which pretty much confirms what you’re saying.
It’s not so much confusion as disappointment. I think many of us (me included) were hoping that the return of Batman’s son meant that “Son of the Demon” was going to be back in continuity. Instead, it’s a reference to an older Batman story that probably far less modern fans had read.
18 Oct 2006 at 12:47 pm
QuoteWhile it’s definitely older, that story’s been reprinted in trades a number of times– it’s pretty much of a piece with the first appearance of Ras al Ghul, and considering the Adams art, I bet a comparable number of fans have read it.
19 Oct 2006 at 1:39 am
Quote